In the arena of wiki wars, there are many types of encyclopedias running off of WikiMedia’s software platform, many of them starting as disputes on Wikipedia.
Some, but not all wikis, are encyclopedias and are intended to be factual and credible information. This is one unique publisher vertical on the web. Education.
Wikipedia (WP) is a genuine online encyclopedia, with the expressed intention of providing factual, credible, and neutral information.
Consistently in the Top ten Alexa rankings, trusted by Google, Apple, Windows and TED talks, WikiMedia software is easily recognized as well as one of the strongest broadcast technologies in the world.
Some wikis, however – abuse this educational technology for misinformation or propaganda, while others mock it with satire or creativity.
RationalWiki (RW), like other ideological wikis, is what I would call a ‘fake encyclopedia‘, in relationship to Wikipedia.
Other wikis such as Conservapedia, Metapedia, and any ideology you can think of with a ‘pedia’ at the end have the tendency to cross the line as a trusted source of information. Most of these type of wikis have extreme viewpoints, and offer their own “educational” wiki enlightening the world to their respective “missions”.
Fake encyclopedias can be very harmful I believe, they are easily abused for propaganda purposes, especially social propaganda which is often weaponized in a wiki war.
‘Mock’ encyclopedia’s are different, however.
Encyclopedia Dramatica (ED) is a ‘mock’ encyclopedia, specifically ‘mocking’ the absurdity of Wikipedia and internet drama in general.
It’s entertainment, and that is pretty apparent once anyone arrives there.
At least I thought that is what it was, but apparently, now ED is going political, like in ‘pro-Trump’ anti-immigrant political.
Perhaps setting a staging ground so the #altright #gamergate can cross platform battle the ‘SJWs’ of RationalWiki in the evolution of wiki wars?
(more on this towards the bottom)
ED popped up on my radar a year or so back, when Oliver Smith, the notorious Wikipedia editor I encountered in my involvement in a ‘wiki war’ on Wikipedia, decided to create another ‘payback article’ against me on that platform, like he did the others, and making good on his email threat to me. This time, however – the article had to adopt to ED’s voice, which is mocking drama, not reporting on it.
Oliver created this article while impersonating someone else, ‘TheRedPenofDoom‘, another Wikipedia editor I encountered on Wikipedia.
Typical to Oliver’s strategy, he would impersonate someone on one side of a conflict to leverage an attack on an individual (me) that he was targeting, hoping to stir up more conflict between ‘RedPenofDoom’ and WWHP, while evading scrutiny himself.
Clever bastard, that Oliver. It took a number of years before anyone could catch on to what he was doing.
Michael Suarez, an admin at ED, was one of the first ones to discover Oliver’s ‘campaigns’.
Michael wound up doing quite a bit of impressive digital investigations into Oliver’s online trail. ED even removed the article Oliver wrote about me, especially because it made really intense claims about me as an internet predator and stalker. I appreciated Michael’s common courtesy and diligence.
ED, like any online platform, is easily abused by members of their community, sometimes just enough so any disgruntled lonely and confused soul can easily voice their opinion about some person they don’t like and instantly have the broadcast power of ED’s google ranking and active online community.
Encyclopedia Dramatica was ripe for Oliver to exploit it, and honorable, and responsible, of Michael to remove it.
So it was somewhat odd to see that a new ED article on WWHP and yours truly was recently published.
At first, I did assume it was the work of Oliver Smith. Michael Suarez assured me that Oliver
was not involved was not the one editing the article, and he reopened the article again and was interested to see what the new page would turn into.
Oye. When will it ever end?
Apparently a new narrative of ‘Rome Viharo’ is emerging on ED, this time outside of the original community that I confronted (Wikipedia editors who edit under the umbrella of ‘skeptic activism’), marking a new twist in this three year long affair.
Now I’ve become an agitator against Donald Trump, a ‘SJW’ who is disconnected from the working class, a Hollywood/Global elitist who wants to allow rapist immigrants into America.
And oddly, I kinda love it in a way, these wiki war narratives about me.
While Suarez claims Oliver is not the one editing, he is commenting in the talk section of this article (as ‘ShadowRome’, creepy) – and this new twist is consistent with Oliver’s clever strategies.
Oliver consistently creates his own ‘personal armies’ online comprised of individuals he believes he can manipulate in different types of online communities. I was wondering how long it would take him to tap into the /r/the_donald, alt right, /pol/ communities and have them focus their attention on me.
So an ED editor by the name of ‘Kiwi Pyre’ (not Oliver! says Kiwi and Oliver) has decided to kick off this exciting new chapter of WWHP.
Kiwi’s only editing history on ED is comprised of editing the Oliver Smith ED article there, where Oliver is apparently wanting to inform Kiwi Pyre of Oliver’s version of events.
Not surprising, the ED article attempts to focus on my ‘outing’ claim on Wikipedia with editor Manul, and event now three years old and only two people care about, Tim Farley and Oliver Smith.
So this letter below is to my ‘new’ fan Kiwi Pyre, and any other ED editor out there wishing to hop on a bandwagon that was initiated by Oliver D. Smith.
You should know that WWHP is apart of a long tail strategy of mine and this project has barely begun.
You should also know that I haven’t even really launched WWHP yet and this project is intrinsically linked to another project of mine called aiki.wiki.
I’m going to be brutally transparent with you about my strategy, so you know what to expect as time moves on. I suggest taking this at face value, and if you do, you will be rewarded with the predictability of what will come to follow.
Everything you’ve read on WWHP so far is nothing but a ‘first draft’ of what will be published later in a more expanded format.
I slowly edit this work after I publish it to the web, mistakes and all, not before.
I know, strange approach it seems at first.
This is intentional, as I prefer to get critical feedback from responses around the web, and use those responses to improve both the evidence and articulation of this study. I often find that my detractors give me the best advice on how to improve the articles, and although I am the author, I approach this work collaboratively. This approach is also a key feature in the actual architecture of aiki.wiki, so it’s something I am constantly seeking to refine.
When I really publish this, it will include more than a blog, and will come with extensive video, critical analysis, solutions architecture, and lucid commentary on specific types of behaviors on the web, plus many other contributors.
This entire website is nothing but a diary, like field notes, published unedited at first online – and then distilled through the communities that are featured in the field study, which help me refine everything until it is ready to be published formally, probably a year or so off.
You should also know that WWHP and aiki.wiki are focused on specific types of online behaviors, primarily around consensus building but also around ‘trolling’ type behaviors or any behaviors that occur in what are known as digital wildfires.
This work is a big part of my life, both professionally but also privately. (I don’t know why but I love this stuff.)
The individuals I encountered on Wikipedia and RationalWiki, Oliver being one, have given me pitch perfect case studies and feedback.
Later, you will see how this evolves into coding specific type of consensus building architectures, and how Oliver and his collaborators have helped.
I’m being completely open and transparent about my strategy so you know what your getting yourself into.
While it may appear to you that WWHP is just someone ‘whining’ about ‘victimization’, what I am actually doing is managing a discussion across a community, especially individuals like Oliver D. Smith, who have participated directly or indirectly in this case study.
What you’re not seeing is that WWHP is more than just a blog, it is a negotiation.
My strategy is, and has been – to confront individuals doing these type of ‘dark collaboratives’ (personal attacks, bizarro world accusations or criticisms, harassment, shaming, outing, doxxing, reputation distortion, etc) and see what sort of choices they make in a collaborative discussion.
I then use those behaviors to propel both the content of this study and the audience that it attracts.
Inside of this process I am working inside of a dialogue with the individuals harassing me, and through this I am able to draw them out in the open more, bring more exposure to their behaviors from independent third party observers.
This means YOU help me go viral in very small niche online communities, and you give this study excellent data points.
As you continue, you will see that you will help me, whether you want to or not, bring more attention to this issue while contributing extraordinary data.
All the attention this site gets is solely from within the communities that participate directly or indirectly somehow. Look at my January stats alone if you don’t believe me when I tell you how effective you are.
When I do officially launch this project, it will probably make more sense to both you and anyone interested than it does in it’s current form. Also, thats when you will actually see what kind of critical mass attention I can bring to something.
Like I said, I’ve barely started.
Also, I started a ‘talk’ section on ED about this, and you can see how this plays out here.
I’m only sharing archives of ED cuz holy holy holy the amount of ad tech fraud overload on that site is not something I would wish on my worst enemy.
tldr; There is a long tail strategy happening here dude, and I just wanted to give you a heads up because we don’t know each other, I have nothing against you. But there is an outcome here that you didn’t ask for and might be unaware of, and you should probably know that.